‘Cambridge Can’t Solve It Alone’: Question 7 Pushes to Lower Required Lot Sizes Across the State

Ballot Question 7 will give Massachusetts voters the chance to decide whether to change the required lot size for single-family homes — but in Cambridge, it may not change very much.

The proposed law, branded “Legalize Starter Homes” by its backers, would require cities and towns to allow the construction of a single-family home on any lot in a residential area that is at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet of distance from a public street.

In Cambridge, the measure would change little on paper. Last February, the City Council voted 8-1 to legalize multifamily housing citywide, allowing four-story residential buildings by right — and taller ones in some cases — and eliminating minimum lot sizes.

Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser, who studies housing markets, said the measure is designed for places with open land that can be divided into 5,000-square-foot parcels—not dense cities like Cambridge.

Still, the proposition has drawn support from Cambridge’s elected officials who see the change as a chance to bolster housing development in other parts of the city — in line with Cambridge’s own housing goals.

“We always hear people saying Cambridge can’t solve it alone. Cambridge can’t solve it alone. It’s a regional issue,” Councilor Marc C. McGovern said. “Well, then support a regional solution and vote yes.”

McGovern said that when suburbs refuse to build, demand spills into the communities that do, including Cambridge, Boston, and Somerville.

What Would Question 7 Do?

Question 7 looks to amend Chapter 40A, the state’s zoning act. Many Massachusetts municipalities currently require much larger lots before a home can be built—often an acre or more, and in some towns, two.

If passed, Question 7 would pare down the lot-size requirement in an attempt to spur housing development, lowering the amount of land required for a small home. The proposition is backed by Abundant Housing Massachusetts, which has championed it as part of a larger “abundance” movement that encourages increasing development to address rising prices.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said Question 7 was “one more proposed tool in the broader toolbox of strategies that Massachusetts has to address our extreme housing shortage.”

“When a town requires half an acre, an acre or more of land to just build one single family home on, that land cost becomes a major factor in the cost of building that home,” he said.

Glaeser said that lowering the required lot size to 5,000 square feet could allow for roughly eight houses per acre of available land.

“The lots determine how difficult it is to build,” he said.

But the scope of the proposition is limited: It only applies to lots serviced by municipal water and sewer, which exempts many small towns, and municipalities would still control the regulations for the actual buildings.

If passed, the state’s Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities would write regulations defining what local rules are allowed.

Supporters see Question 7 as a “promising first step”

Support for the proposition has garnered more than $1.5 million dollars from three main committees — much of which has come from the real estate industry.

Of the roughly $1.48 million in donations reported by Legalize Starter Homes, about $850,000 — or 58 percent — came from two trade groups: the Massachusetts Association of Realtors and its PAC, which gave $500,000, and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, which gave $350,000.

A second committee, run by Abundant Housing Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by a $250,000 donation from the Welcoming Neighbors Network, a national pro-housing group.

To supporters, Question 7 promises a long-awaited push against decades of restrictive zoning that they say has contributed to the state’s growing housing crisis.

Massachusetts has made a narrower exception before. Since 1969, Chapter 40B has let certain affordable housing projects bypass local zoning boards that reject them. Question 7, Glaeser said, would extend by-right approval to any qualifying starter home.

McGovern rejected the argument that the measure tramples property rights, but that the overhaul would bring more options for developing housing in a variety of sizes.

“No one’s forcing you to build anything on your property,” he said. “In a lot of ways, this is actually giving you more control, more flexibility, more options.”

Glaeser said the measure is no cure-all, but “at best a promising first step,” and predicted a long legal fight if the measure passes.

“It’s going to be litigated like crazy for the next 10 years if it gets through,” he said.

Glaeser also pointed to research by Harvard economist Raj Chetty ‘00 linking neighborhoods that promote upward mobility with tighter zoning — which he said means ordinary families are often pushed, or priced, out of the places most likely to help their children get ahead.

“If you don’t build more housing, you won’t get more affordable housing,” Glaeser said.

Opponents Criticize a “One-Size-Fits-All” Approach

Estimates of the impact the zoning change could have on development across the state vary widely. An analysis by Tufts University’s Tisch College projected roughly 750 net new homes per year, with a plausible range of 350 to 1,200. An analysis from Legalize Starter Homes, the main committee backing the proposition, estimated 2,200 to 5,700 new homes per year.

Although no ballot committee has formed to oppose the measure, opponents criticize it as a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

The proposition’s most vocal critic is the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a trade association representing 351 cities and towns. Adam Chapdelaine, the MMA’s executive director, argued that the proposition strips local control over zoning — and that lowering lot sizes could strain local infrastructure without guaranteeing the resulting developments will be affordable.

“It only talks about setback frontage, and that if you want to produce smaller affordable homes, you need to go further than that,” he said.

Chapdelaine authored the opposition argument in the state’s official voter guide, writing that the measure would override local planning regardless of existing neighborhoods, infrastructure, or environmental conditions.

“This proposal replaces thoughtful local planning with a one-size-fits-all mandate that ignores the individual needs of all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns,” Chapdelaine wrote.

Pushback has similarly materialized in Cambridge. The Cambridge Citywide Coalition — a resident group formerly known as the Cambridge Citizen’s Coalition — rated its support for Question 7 “mixed, leaning no,” in its September preliminary voting guide after “considerable discussion” the coalition wrote. The CCC was largely opposed to the city’s zoning overhaul in 2025.

In a statement, the CCC steering committee argued that Question 7 “does not require homes to be affordable to limit their size or sale price,” and would not “guarantee more homes that people can afford.”

The CCC wrote in their guide that, while housing is a regional problem, housing policy should reflect actual neighborhood conditions rather than broad state preemption — adding that it is “generally not in favor of the state overriding cities.”

—Staff writer Theresa F. Bartelme can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at theresabartelme.15. Follow her on X @theresabartelme.